Introduction

Recently, a person I appreciate shared the following video with me on social media because they particularly enjoyed it.

La guerre avec la Chine ?

Personally, I find that she is a summary of everything I don't like about Mélenchon. So I decided to use it as a pretext to write this blog article where I will detail what bothers me in Mélenchon's discourse on foreign policy.

Essentialization of peoples

To begin with, I'm going to have a little rant that is only loosely related to the subject of this video: I find it very unpleasant to see him once again delivering a completely essentializing speech about another people based on outdated clichés.

Contrary to what he said during a television appearance, if Zemmour is a fascist it is not because he is Jewish (sorry, of Jewish culture, it is completely different), if some Chechens have committed atrocities it is not because they are Chechen (very nice for the millions of Chechens who have never done anything wrong in their lives), and if the Chinese government negotiated rather than used force with the English to recover Hong Kong, it is not because of their culture that would make all Chinese patient strategists who plan their moves long in advance. It is rather because declaring war on England would have been suicide.

It is good to apologize when this erroneous way of thinking about other peoples leads to making racist remarks. Most French politicians would not have the honesty to do so. But it would be better if, after a while, the problem is corrected.

Not only would it reduce the risk of slip-ups that could harm his candidacies, but it would also allow him to use his audience to disseminate more interesting analytical frameworks based on the power dynamics and interests of the different groups that make up a society.

SourcesMélenchon admet qu’il s’est "mal exprimé" après ses propos sur le judaïsme et Zemmour

SourcesLes Tchétchènes d'Europe appellent à porter plainte contre Jean-Luc Mélenchon pour "incitation à la haine"

His position on Taiwan and Ukraine (it was about time I addressed the subject)

But let's get to the heart of the matter. His presentation of Taiwan's history contains nothing factually false. Nevertheless, I don't find his presentation very honest. So I will allow myself to make my own completely biased and not at all objective presentation of Taiwan's history (but factually accurate).

As he says, Taiwan was attached to China between 1683 and 1895. However, even during this period, it was a rebellious province that was in fact extremely independent and whose population was never predominantly Chinese (nor a big fan of Chinese domination). Taiwan has always been an island with a language, culture, history, and ethnicity different from that dominant in China.

If he really wants to compare the situation of Taiwan with that of a French department, then he should rather compare it to Mayotte. And, again, Mayotte is much more integrated into France than Taiwan has ever been to China. For example, Mayotte has not spent the last 130 years governed by a completely independent government, except for the 4 years between 1945 and 1949 (when Taiwan was supposed to be governed by Beijing, but in fact, the civil war prevented it from governing anything).

Since Mélenchon likes comparisons that make no sense, Taiwan was separated from China 30 years before Finland was separated from Russia and no one dares to claim that theRussia might still have rights over Finland (although with Putin, you never know)

For me, China's claims on Taiwan have no justification other than a lowbrow nationalism. For me, Taiwan is no more Chinese than Palestine is Israeli, Ukraine is Russian, or Kanaky is French.

Speaking of Ukraine, I could write almost the same paragraph about Ukrainians, with the exception that when it was part of the Russian Empire (then ofThe Ukrainians were treated like colonized people by the USSR, at least according to Ukrainian anarchists I spoke with on Discord. That is, like France treats the Kanaks or like the English treat the Irish. For them, the issue is not the loss of a relatively limited democracy, but avoiding being colonized again.

Taiwanese, Palestinians, Kanak, and Ukrainians, like all peoples, have the right to self-determination and not to live under the constant threat of being invaded by a neighbor fallen into the hands of the extreme right.

For me, being anti-colonial (as Mélenchon claims to be) means supporting Ukrainians, Palestinians, Taiwanese, and Kanaks against the imperialists who threaten them. However, knowing what to do to help Ukrainians and Taiwanese is complicated. On this subject, it seems that there are no clear good choices.

Sacralization of international law and treaties signed by France

Finally, I agree that international law does not recognize Taiwan, but that does not mean it is right or that France or the EU does not have the right to demand that this change.

I would like him to understand that calling for a change in a law (or a border) because it is considered unjust is not a call to stop respecting the law (or borders). There is a major difference between voting on a text calling for China to grant independence to Taiwan and working to impose this change by force, which he seems to forget.

Moreover,I find it a bit inconsistent to sanctify international law and treaties for Taiwan or Israel, but to call for not respecting the European treaties. After all, we all have our inconsistencies (myself included).

Just, I will find plus fair and consistent to say That there are certain treaties that are more legitimate than others.

For me, this paradox is resolved by saying that the measures that have been taken are the constraint of the powerful or in a non-democratic manner, such as the rejection of Taiwan's independence or the Lisbon Treaty, are illegitimate. Whereas the measures taken despite the powerful or that promote principles that weappearJust as the condemnations of the genocide in Gaza or the treaties that France signed after the Second World War to limit the risk of genocide are legitimate.

If he is so keen on defending the Chinese position, he could say that international law is unjust, but that in the current state of affairs, one cannot oppose it. Or that opposing it head-on would result in the opposite of what the Taiwanese want. After all, what the Taiwanesedesire, it is A negotiated solution, not a war of independence. Yet, the stupid and nasty denunciation of current treaties and the instrumentalization by the USA The conflict to increase their military presence in the region does not go in this direction.

However, if he says that, he should also propose an alternative policy that the EU (or France) could implement. to promote peace and respect for the independence of Taiwan. And that, it n’is not easy (I, for one, am not capable of it).

And what if he was right to be wrong (I must end with a chapter defending Mélenchon if I want to avoid my FI friends killing me in an alley)

Introduction

Well, that's it, I've criticized the old man, now I can be a fanboy of Mélenchon without being seen as a woke Islamo-leftist sectarian. Indeed, despite all the criticisms I just addressed to Mélenchon, I like his public stances on foreign policy for one simple reason: They always advocate for peace in the world.

And in the current context of rising tensions, the return of warlike nationalism (both in the West and among the BRICS), and the widespread rejection of international law (initiated by George Bush with his war in Iraq or Obama/Sarkozy with their war in Libya and not by Russia with its war in Ukraine), we desperately need this kind of discourse.

By the way, let's talk about the context.

If Mélenchon were a university professor giving a geopolitics lecture in a chill and relaxed atmosphere with as much time as he wants, I think I have sufficiently demonstrated that his speech would simply be unacceptable.

But, in case it escaped anyone's notice, Mélenchon is a political activist who must find a way to convey his message of peace on hostile media where you get cut off when you make a sentence longer than 30 seconds. His message must also be audible to a mass of people who turn on their TV after being exhausted by work and kids. A mass that is not particularly interested in what is happening in the Pacific and is daily fed pro-war propaganda saying that all tensions in the South China Seas are entirely due to Chinese policy. And that the USA is only protecting the weak and peaceful democracies of Southeast Asia.

There, dear readers, is the moment when you protest that in France the media are free and that I cannot therefore make such borderline conspiracy remarks. And you would be right. In France (unlike in China), there is no state censorship.

Consequently, for those who take the trouble to look for them, they will find many nuanced analyses indicating the arguments of both sides or attempting to present this conflict in a more general context.

Anyone who makes the effort to search, in France, will come to the conclusion that the Taiwan issue is above all a struggle between two imperialists for control of trade routes, territory, minerals, high-tech industry, and for global supremacy. But certainly not a fight between democracy and totalitarianism.

Anyone who takes the trouble to investigate will conclude that the USA couldn't care less about Taiwan's sovereignty, just as they couldn't care less about their first genocide, and are merely using the Taiwan issue to deploy their military forces in the region. They are not at all seeking a negotiated settlement of the conflict between Taiwan and China (in my opinion, China also does not want a peaceful resolution of the conflict, but even if they did, it would not be possible with the current attitude of the USA).

However, the important words were: 'for those who take the trouble to look for them', because France and other Western countries have found a much more effective method to control the media than blunt censorship: making the media companies like any other.

But to understand it, we must go back.

Media critique

After World War II, in most Western countries, a strong antifascist movement was formed.

And, they had analyzed that during the 1930s, throughout the West, the press had boosted the far right and that this had been one of the main causes of the rise to power of Nazism in Germany and the formation of extremely powerful Nazi parties in all Western countries (powerful enough to weaken the democracies' opposition to Nazism when there was still time).

As a result, laws had been passed to regulate the activity of the press and make them businesses not quite like the others. For example, in the USA, laws had been passed to prohibit the press from spreading false news, and subsidies were granted to them so that they would not rely solely on advertising revenue.

And, in France, laws had been passed so that journalists were not subject to their editors and to prevent a person from owning multiple media outlets. It was far from perfect, but these regulations had the merit of existing and had a certain effectiveness.

However, during the 1980s, its regulations were completely removed and the media reverted to being businesses with the sole objective of making as much profit as possible. They reverted to being companies owned by a small number of ultra-rich individuals. They reverted to being companies led by all-powerful editors-in-chief recruited from a sub-bourgeoisie with uniform backgrounds and ideas. Editors-in-chief aligned with the interests and reactionary opinions of the small caste of ultra-rich individuals (like Bernard Arnault or Bolloré) who appointed them.

The same causes producing the same effects, it did not take long for the media:

• Roll out the red carpet again for the far right, as their outrageous remarks sell and appeal to the ultra-rich.

• Massively broadcast a uniform and sometimes ridiculously false message, because there is no diversity of viewpoint within the editorial teams that could allow them to realize the problem.

• Exacerbate tensions both within society and between nations because it sells.

• Violently discredit, then attempt to exclude any dissenting voice that might still manage to appear.

The result is very similar to what one would have in a dictatorship that applies violent censorship to its media.

Attention, I said similar, but not identical. Indeed, in our democratic countries, there are activist media that escape these logics and the possibility for anonymous people like me to express themselves. Moreover, there remains in some leading newspapers like Le Monde or public service media a remnant of journalistic ethics that pushes them to give a very minority place to divergent opinions (at 2 a.m. or in a box on page 36).

This is not the case in China, or rather it is much less so. (As totalitarian as the Chinese state may be, it cannot control everything and there remain spaces for freedom of expression in China)

However, in the end, only an ultra-minority of the population will be confronted with this divergent discourse during their lifetime. And even if they are, this divergent opinion will quickly be drowned out by the mass of propaganda repeated to them day after day. Hence the reason I argue that the result is very similar.

Consequence and conclusion

In such a context, if one wishes to combat the rise of tensions, resorting to abusive simplifications, essentialization, and sharp, unnuanced discourse can be justified.

Given that we are already inundated with anti-Chinese rhetoric that encourages us to accept an arms race, is he perhaps right to emphasize criticism of the USA and the defense of China? Indeed, is itIs it really useful to remind that China has its faults when we are inundated from morning to night with (truthful) criticism of China? Especially considering the limited brain time Mélenchon has access to.

In the short term, I am convinced that this is a good strategy. However, in the long term, his unwavering support for the far-right Chinese dictatorship risks discrediting his camp (as the French Communist Party was discredited by its unwavering support for the USSR).Not to mention that it drives away potential voters and activists who, like me, cannot stand this kind of discourse. However, given the context, can we really afford the luxury of thinking long-term? Is it really to already convinced people like me that we should be addressing?

I do not have the answer to his questions. For obvious moral reasons, I would prefer that he abandon this strategy and try to present the situation with as much accuracy and nuance as possible. However, I do not blame those who, on the contrary, argue that he should maintain this discourse.

Remark

However, there is still something that poses a real problem for me.

If on TV, this strategy can be justified by everything I just said, I don't think it is justified when he expresses himself on his blog or on his YouTube channel.

Indeed, while on TV it is obvious that he cannot do anything other than take clear-cut and simplistic positions, on YouTube or on his blog, he has every opportunity to elaborate on his position.

As a result, seeing him persist on his media with a mindless and aggressive defense of China makes me wonder if those might be his true opinions. And that, that scares me.

But that won't stop me from voting for him in the next elections, because as discouraging as it may be on this subject as on others, he remains the candidate with the best positions. Indeed, I prefer that France be led by someone who is not sufficiently pro-Taiwanese or pro-Ukrainian than to be led by someone who sees no problem with the current arms race or delivering weapons to Israel knowing that they will be used to commit genocide (I know that international organizations do not qualify what is happening in Gaza as genocide, but as a succession of war crimes that could degenerate into genocide, but I consider that politically, it is legitimate to call it genocide).